×
  • remind me tomorrow
  • remind me next week
  • never remind me
Subscribe to the ANN Newsletter • Wake up every Sunday to a curated list of ANN's most interesting posts of the week. read more

Forum - View topic
NEWS: ADV Court Documents Reveal Amounts Paid for 29 Anime Titles


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Note: this is the discussion thread for this article

Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
dragonrider_cody



Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Posts: 2541
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:33 am Reply with quote
[quote="bllanosr"][quote="dragonrider_cody"][quote="bllanosr"][quote="dragonrider_cody"]
batou37 wrote:
TJ_Kat wrote:


The opposite can also be true. Ford recently had a $12 billion dollar positive adjustment due to tax gains from writing off their losses over the past several years. However, that doesn't mean that the government came and handed Ford $12 billion in money back. However, they will be using that adjustment to offset taxes for the next several years and will likely pay little or no income tax for the next several years.


Actually it does, the money that Ford didn't have to pay the government in taxes is money that government handed to them. If you found out that your neighbor, who makes the same amount of money as you and in the same tax bracket, didn't have to pay taxes because he claimed a loss, then would you consider that a government handout? Your neighbor is not going bankrupt, losing his home or car. He just claimed a loss, because he had a bad investment somewhere last year and is off-setting the money he has to pay in taxes. However, you can't do the same, because you can't claim a loss.

[Income] Tax is a fiscal balance that the government does annually. They want to know where money is coming and going That's what a W-2 is. When your employer claims your pay check as a loss, they pass that loss to you as your gain. When you win a big prize at a casino, you also get a W-2 (or whatever that form is) because the casino is passing that loss as your gain. When the lender takes your home away at a loss, you will, believe it or not, get something from the government stating that you gained whatever the lender lost and charge you the tax on it. It sounds really awful and unfair, but for every "-" there has to be a "+" or the accounting will not add up.


I never disputed that. I simply said that writing off something on your taxes doesnt immediately mean you now have that money in your pocket to spend. Even in the case of Ford, it's all tax gains and most of the money will takes years to come in. They don't physically possess the twelve billions dollars this exact moment in time. It's why they showed a huge profit last quarter, but the overall equities only increased slight. If they had actually, physically received $12 billion dollars, their cash on hand would have increased by about 50%. However, it only increased by a little over a billion.

The reverse is also true. That's why companies can write off huge multi-billion dollar loses that can equal their equity, but still have money to pay their bills. It's also why some companies can keep running despite years and years of losses on paper.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bayoab



Joined: 06 Oct 2004
Posts: 831
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:36 am Reply with quote
PurpleWarrior13 wrote:
BTW, the Sgt. Frog numbers are based on the license for eps. 1-51,

"Season 2" appears on later documents thus this should only be for S1 (1-26-ish).

dragonrider_cody wrote:
Metanomaly wrote:
Looking at this list, it's like ADV didn't do any market research at all before agreeing to these licensing deals...


The bigger problem is that ADV had NO SAY in the licensing deals. Sojitz was able to force them to take titles, decide how much they pay for them, and even override them on marketing decisions. Sojitz also appointed people to various positions inside ADV and had control over their finances.

No, the agreement was very clear that ADV would decide on titles, lead negotiations, and everything in acquisitions and that ARM was just supposed to approve spending. Now the question is who at ADV was making which decisions for titles.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dragonrider_cody



Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Posts: 2541
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:38 am Reply with quote
bayoab wrote:
PurpleWarrior13 wrote:
BTW, the Sgt. Frog numbers are based on the license for eps. 1-51,

"Season 2" appears on later documents thus this should only be for S1 (1-26-ish).

dragonrider_cody wrote:
Metanomaly wrote:
Looking at this list, it's like ADV didn't do any market research at all before agreeing to these licensing deals...


The bigger problem is that ADV had NO SAY in the licensing deals. Sojitz was able to force them to take titles, decide how much they pay for them, and even override them on marketing decisions. Sojitz also appointed people to various positions inside ADV and had control over their finances.

No, the agreement was very clear that ADV would decide on titles, lead negotiations, and everything in acquisitions and that ARM was just supposed to approve spending. Now the question is who at ADV was making which decisions for titles.


Actually no it didn't. The contract made t quite clear that Sojitz could override ADVs decisions. Even if it didn't, the personnel who were in charge of making those decisions were employees of ARM/Sojitz. So effectively Sojitz had put themselves in charge of acquisitions. That's why there was such a conflict of interests here. It would be like putting your credit card company in charge of balancing your checkbook and budget.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bayoab



Joined: 06 Oct 2004
Posts: 831
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:06 am Reply with quote
dragonrider_cody wrote:
bayoab wrote:
No, the agreement was very clear that ADV would decide on titles, lead negotiations, and everything in acquisitions and that ARM was just supposed to approve spending. Now the question is who at ADV was making which decisions for titles.


Actually no it didn't. The contract made t quite clear that Sojitz could override ADVs decisions. Even if it didn't, the personnel who were in charge of making those decisions were employees of ARM/Sojitz. So effectively Sojitz had put themselves in charge of acquisitions. That's why there was such a conflict of interests here. It would be like putting your credit card company in charge of balancing your checkbook and budget.

1) The agreement does not mention Sojitz.
2) ARM could not override, only reject.

Now you can try and argue that the guys were acting as proxies. But it has to be considered that ADV only claims that they were intentionally overpaying. ADV never claims they were acting on their own by licensing stuff ADV didn't want to license.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CKSqua



Joined: 07 Oct 2011
Posts: 38
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:15 am Reply with quote
Sam Murai wrote:
The prices for some of those series are eyepopping, from the aforementioned Kurau to the dirt-cheapness of Magikano and the Air movie (I can't say they are all-around terrible, but some more than others…). To think Pumpkin Scissors was worth $3/4 million, when the Welcome to the NHK was much less and better reviewed, is absurd (that PS was worth that much alone is crazy). And I'm a huge Red Garden fan, but wow… O.O


While I wouldn't know how some of those prices got so high, they partly reflect the line of thinking at the time.

For instance, GONZO was still seen as a weapon for the US market (despite the fact that the studio had run into financial trouble and had gained a spotty reputation), so the western-oriented works would've commanded high prices. Pumpkin Scissors and Red Garden were such offerings during the second half of 2006, and ADV may have been inclined to guarantee their acquisition.

I also recall a lot of enthusiasm for Guyver (a key to attracting older fans) and Coyote Ragtime Show (Funimation really wanted this one too), with ADV boasting that they had to run out and grab the latter as soon as they watched the premiere episode. Keeping these titles away from the competition would've cost money.

In addition to being a big license, Ah! My Goddess had to be wrestled away from Media Blasters, who wanted the second season but couldn't hope to match what ADV/ARM offered to pay.

Finally, AIR TV was perceived as a risky, experimental (IIRC, one of the ADV reps even described it as such) title with unknown prospects in the US. Competing distributors didn't seem too eager, and observers argued that the DVD buying market wouldn't be interested (i.e. only hardcore Japanophiles would want to watch that stuff, and they already leech fansubbed offerings as soon as they're available). I suppose the fee never had to get too high for ARM to close a deal.

That said, it's completely possible that ADV dictated what they wanted, and ARM followed through with higher bids than was necessary.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
enurtsol



Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 14796
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:23 am Reply with quote
Ranma824 wrote:

Underwaterrayromano and Air seem to be the best deals.


ADV already paid for the Air TV series, so they may had gotten a discount on the movie. Utawarerumono seems to be outstanding debt still owed, not total payments.

For comparison, IIRC Disney gave Tokuma $10 million upfront for the Ghibli films in 1997, Saban paid $8 million for 7 years of Sailor Moon way back in 1995, and Nelvana paid ~US$2.4 million (~CAN$4 million) for 4 years of Card Captor Sakura. (It's usually easier to get info from publicly-traded companies that have to file annual financial reports.)

Also IIRC, it used to be that it takes 40,000 unit sales to be considered a hit.


Last edited by enurtsol on Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:46 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dragonrider_cody



Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Posts: 2541
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:29 am Reply with quote
bayoab wrote:
dragonrider_cody wrote:
bayoab wrote:
No, the agreement was very clear that ADV would decide on titles, lead negotiations, and everything in acquisitions and that ARM was just supposed to approve spending. Now the question is who at ADV was making which decisions for titles.


Actually no it didn't. The contract made t quite clear that Sojitz could override ADVs decisions. Even if it didn't, the personnel who were in charge of making those decisions were employees of ARM/Sojitz. So effectively Sojitz had put themselves in charge of acquisitions. That's why there was such a conflict of interests here. It would be like putting your credit card company in charge of balancing your checkbook and budget.

1) The agreement does not mention Sojitz.
2) ARM could not override, only reject.

Now you can try and argue that the guys were acting as proxies. But it has to be considered that ADV only claims that they were intentionally overpaying. ADV never claims they were acting on their own by licensing stuff ADV didn't want to license.


I was using the name Sojitz as they were the lead investor in ARM and even claimed ADV as a partially owned subsidiary on their website when the deal was active. ARM was composed of employees primarily from Sojitz.

Also, none of that changes the fact that ARM clearly appointed executives at the company that had conflicts of interest. The CFO who was ultimately in charge of finances was also an employee of a major creditor. The CSO would have likely had a huge say in what they acquired and what titles to pursue.

And as the poster above noted, it is possible that ADV may have chosen what they were interested in but ARM ultimately had final approval over the amounts they paid. You said yourself that ARM had to approve the expenditures per their agreement. ARM had executives in place that would have been responsible for the decisions that would have lead to the overpaying or could have stopped them before they risked their investment.


Last edited by dragonrider_cody on Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:32 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dragonrider_cody



Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Posts: 2541
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:30 am Reply with quote
enurtsol wrote:
Ranma824 wrote:

Underwaterrayromano and Air seem to be the best deals.


ADV already paid for the Air TV series, so they may had gotten a discount on the movie. Utawarerumono seems to be outstanding debt still owed, not total payments.

For comparison, IIRC Disney gave Tokuma $10 million upfront for the Ghibli films in 1997, and Nelvana paid $2 million for 4 years for Card Captor Sakura. (It's easier to get info from publicly-traded companies that have to file reports to the SEC.)

Also IIRC, it used to be that it takes 40,000 unit sales to be considered a hit.


Air TV was a TBS title. The movie was from Toei. They wouldn't have been able to license them together.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
configspace



Joined: 16 Aug 2008
Posts: 3717
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:27 am Reply with quote
TJ_Kat wrote:
By taking back all the licenses, why would ADV owe ARM (and later FUNimation) anything? You default on your mortgage, your lender takes your house away, but you don't have to keep paying for the mortgage anymore.

I realize taking the licenses back doesn't exactly amount to the same thing since some titles had already been released for a while so you'd expect some money to be owed for them, but most certainly not the full amount.

Yeah that's what I don't understand either, when ADV already paid $8,963,006 for these titles which they have lost and are now in Funi's possession from the time they folded...

I know very little about the history and the lawsuit itself other than Funimation's claim that ADV owes them $8 million, so can someone recap and distill the situation?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BigOnAnime
Encyclopedia Editor


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 1233
Location: Minnesota, USA
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:39 am Reply with quote
Saw a screenshot of what was listed a few days ago. That's what I figured licensing costs were like as I heard a few years ago it isn't uncommon to see the fees being $20,000 an episode.

Also on the comment about how much it costs to make anime, think again. It's apparently $110,000-$220,000 to make an episode, and as that article is from two years ago, I'd say the costs are higher now.
animenewsnetwork.com/news/2009-10-09/producer/no-square-enix-anime-lost-money-in-8-years
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website My Anime My Manga
Polycell



Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Posts: 4623
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:46 am Reply with quote
configspace wrote:
TJ_Kat wrote:
By taking back all the licenses, why would ADV owe ARM (and later FUNimation) anything? You default on your mortgage, your lender takes your house away, but you don't have to keep paying for the mortgage anymore.

I realize taking the licenses back doesn't exactly amount to the same thing since some titles had already been released for a while so you'd expect some money to be owed for them, but most certainly not the full amount.

Yeah that's what I don't understand either, when ADV already paid $8,963,006 for these titles which they have lost and are now in Funi's possession from the time they folded...

I know very little about the history and the lawsuit itself other than Funimation's claim that ADV owes them $8 million, so can someone recap and distill the situation?
When ARM repossessed the licenses, they claim ADV owed ~11 million dollars; Funimation bought them for roughly $3 million and claims they were also given the right to hit ADV up for the rest(which would be the amount they're suing over).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nayu



Joined: 23 Dec 2010
Posts: 676
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:25 am Reply with quote
Wow, looking at these numbers and comparing them to what I've spent on anime and manga.... I could have licensed a show by now....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kimiko_0



Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 1796
Location: Leiden, NL, EU
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:10 pm Reply with quote
I don't get it either. Take Kurau for example. ADV tried to get the license for it, but couldn't pay. Funimation did get the license, and have been releasing it on DVD (I just checked my copy, and it says "Funimation" on the spine). So how can they claim now that Sentai owe them money for it?
It sounds like Funimation have their cake, and have been eating from it for a while, but are now trying to bully (Funimation are clearly the stronger party in this dispute) someone else into paying for their meal. A big Booooh! to them if that's true.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime My Manga
Mesonoxian Eve



Joined: 10 Jan 2012
Posts: 1858
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:39 pm Reply with quote
I'm curious if there will be any unintentional fallout from this lawsuit enough to cause Japanese businesses to tread with trepidation future partnerships or licenses.

It's well regarded Japaneses businesses do not like to have their dealings made public. Coming from an industry terrified of reverse importation, such actions could have a ripple effect.

I understand this is a very rare situation, but I can see it prone to growth as the industry moves into the digital distribution age and copyright infringement suits can truly open up these cans of worms while defendants protect themselves, regardless who they are.

I did finally listen to the podcast addressing this issue, and while I do agree there's no way to know who "wins", I'd like to point out one of the biggest problems facing this industry is the fact they're not playing well together.

It's rather pathetic, really, because both are trying to fight the same enemy (market change) while at the same time pointing their cannons at each other.

This situation screams "Pyrrhic Victory".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
agila61



Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 3213
Location: NE Ohio
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:42 pm Reply with quote
walw6pK4Alo wrote:
Finally, it's nice to see actual numbers for what licensing actually does give back to the producers. From what I've heard about Bamboo Blade and other series, shows can run between something like 75,000 to 120,000 per episode to produce. So are licensing fees really only a small factor to help the bottom line?

These are international licensing fees from a single overseas region ... and whether or not it was the single largest overseas region at that time, it certainly is not the only one.

So when I see $32,500/episode licensing fee for Pumpkin Scissors, I am not thinking that the license fee is "only a small factor" ... I'm thinking its a big windfall. If production costs for those episodes were, say, $200,000/episode (I don't recall where exchange rates were back in 2006), then that would be 16%+ of production costs on international license fees from a single overseas region. Wow! Add the fact that there's Animax Asia, Animax India and Animax Korea broadcast deals and a German license, and they must have hit way, way over their international license income budget on that show.

When the Sojitz deal was described as a deal gone bad, forcing the ADV restructure into TeamSentai, these numbers really put some meat on that description.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group